BREAKING: Pope speaks out against Kasper Proposal!

Good news! The Holy Father is, in no uncertain terms, on record as denouncing the Kasper Proposal (which I’ve briefly discussed before) for admitting “remarried” Catholics to Communion. In his typically direct manner, the pope denounces “the abuse by which Christian marriages, even long-stable ones, are [so readily] dissolved”. He goes on:

This abuse involves dissolution without due cause or in violation of canon law, and threatens grave injury to the faithful. …

Certainly it is clear that these dissolutions of marriages … are a source of evil and an open door to crime. … [F]requent marriage dissolutions are not without the gravest offense and scandal to the upright. … 

To remedy this pernicious evil, … [I declare] all pacts between spouses for the dissolution of marriages to be null, invalid, and ineffectual, both now and for the future. … 

[The Church’s clear teaching on] matrimony … sufficiently informs the faithful of the sanctity of marriage. They may now approach this great sacrament with that reverence and piety which is fitting, and regard it as indissoluble. … 

[T]he nullity of a marriage … may not be executed unless both judgments with their arguments are first examined and approved [in the external forum].  



About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to BREAKING: Pope speaks out against Kasper Proposal!

  1. Zippy says:

    Hahahahaha hermeneutic of awesome.

  2. Got a link to the source? This is a pleasant surprise.

  3. Unless you’re not being serious?

    Help me out here, I’m lost.

  4. Tony Jokin says:

    Ummm, are you sure about the source?

    Because a quick search shows that Nimiam Licentiam by Pope Benedict XIV to contain the exact same words and those lines to be lifted from it.

  5. Tony Jokin says:

    Unless you were deliberately quoting it by making it seem like you were speaking of Pope Francis while you never actually say which Pope actually denounced Cardinal Kasper haha

    P.S. I am sure some Apologists will sideline that entire document by Pope Benedict XIV as him referring to Poland only and therefore not really a binding teaching or anything. Some might even say it was something for Polish culture alone but not for all. Such are the ways of the modern man…….

  6. You get it, Tony, but I have to keep the joke going. 🙂

  7. Tony Jokin says:

    Haha, you know, I already was on the way to emailing your post and even praising God in my head as I was doing it. I was thinking “Pope Francis has come around!!! I wonder what did it? Maybe something that happened when visiting Holy Land….” but then I was like lets just make sure…..

    Well my bubble was burst 😦 …..but still, it is at least further proof of how the Church leaders seems to act today as if those documents and old Popes do not exist or never addressed their modern enlightened ideas… Today, no one even wants to talk about divorce and it’s more about what to do with remarriage.

  8. Jerry says:

    This is all fine and good, but I don’t see how it relates top Cdn. Kasper’s proposal. Unless I missed something, he wasn’t proposing dissolving the failed marriages, but rather tolerating that those who are living in a state of objective grave sin as a result of marrying outside the Church after a divorce without an annulment receive Holy Communion.

  9. Zippy says:


    See here.

  10. tamsin325 says:

    I made it as far as and threatens grave injury to the faithful before I looked back at the headline and confirmed that you didn’t name the Pope.

    Very cute.

  11. tamsin325 says:

    Francis never talks like that unless he’s expressing concern for those who have been wounded by the Church.

  12. tamsin325 says:

    “wounded” in the ways implied in his America interview.

  13. I figured it out, but Codg didn’t post it to try and keep up the game…

  14. It’s up now though.

  15. I’m sly like a fox. I even discerned a call to the Jesuits for years.

  16. Oh yeah, I saw that. Casuistry is bad, eh? This man has no sense of irony.

  17. Tony Jokin says:

    I sat there for a bit just staring at my screen out of disappointment after reading it.

    I think it is officially safe to say that the Pope has no understanding of the concept that if you “normalize” some behavior (i.e. make it “not strange”), then it spreads. You can pamper it in nice words like “compassion” but it will spread like a plague and that is how we got in to this current mess in the first place.

    And what does it mean to not use casuistry to state what can be done and cannot be done? Are we to use emotionalism to decide instead? I am just very disappointed now.

  18. Branch says:

    I feel the same, and I am more confused than I was before and disappointed that this “clarification” was anything but (at least to me).

  19. Pied-piper NLP. Jedi mind tricks. Orwellian obfuscation.

    Distinctions are casuistry, a clarification is even more confusing, morality is Pharisaism, indifference is mercy. Something is very rotten in Denmark, and we just need to pray. Maybe the pope will make the mess he’s always wanted and then simply retire, like a successful CEO (

    [Never mind this inconvenient truth:

    HT to ABS

  20. Branch says:

    Hmm…I try not to give in to “conspiracy theories,” but what gives?

    Yes, and if the confusion itself is not enough, you must realize “it’s all your fault!”. You’re projecting your fears; it’s your pride that’s the problem; you just don’t get it:

    I wonder if its dawned on those who hold this view that perhaps they are the ones out to protect themselves from their fears? Fears that the Pope and Cardinals are off base a bit and that what is happening is truly awful — too awful to bear.. And so they must change the conversation to being about those who oppose them. They cannot face squarely the concerns of the concerned. They either deny, ignore or resort to psychoanalysis, and even accuse them of spreading discontent.

    All of this comes in the context of the current tidal wave of “mercy,” non-judgmentalism, “humility.”

    It must be nice to be these people: they can remain above-it-all while everyone else flounders in pride and panic and confusion, since they “misread Francis.”

    I would believe in the mercy and humility of these people if they would lend a hand to us and explain how we ought to “read Francis.” Be charitable; share; counsel the ignorant. But when you protest and they actually face you, they will tell you that their faith is simple, that they don’t understand the concern. If it stopped there, I would be forced to respect them and their simple faith as the landscape of their soul is sacred ground. But typically they do not stop there.

    They go on to invade your soul with their moralizing and acting as self-righteous simpletons instead of a humble one with simple faith, dismissing you, misrepresenting you, constantly speaking from both sides of their mouths – and worst of all, blindly so.

  21. Tony Jokin says:

    Sigh, you are right! Prayer is all we can do now. I cannot tell you how many times I have looked back and wished that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI didn’t retire. Everything felt like it was more or less coming back together with him at the reigns and now it feels like we are on the way to hitting a new high in the level of needless confusion and disasters in the name of being pastoral.

    The other thing that troubles me is that while is somewhat true that divorce, fornication and remarriage has become somewhat rampant in our parts of the world, there are places where it hasn’t yet gotten that bad. Even in our parts of the world, there is still some sense that it is wrong. But the Pope is hellbent on normalizing all of this it seems. First he wants the “Divorced” to not feel strange. Then maybe he will want the “LGBT” to feel that same. Maybe abortion supporters are next and so forth. By the time he retires, he could potentially spread the errors and immorality globally, especially to the parts of the world where it had never gotten to such bad levels.

  22. drprice2 says:

    “The other thing that troubles me is that while is somewhat true that divorce, fornication and remarriage has become somewhat rampant in our parts of the world”

    As to divorce, it’s not necessarily so. Even in the U.S., Catholics have a lower divorce rate than the national average.

    But not for long, it appears.

  23. Pingback: Pope denounces Kasper bigamy proposal! | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

  24. Danielius says:

    This is off-topic but speaking of Cdl. Kasper It’s-50/50-Whether-I-Mean-What-I-Say-Because-Even-If-I-Do I-May-Not-Have-The-Capacity-For-It-Therefore-I-May-Not-Actually-Mean-It. I was thinking about his remarks about how the V2 documents are in many ways a compromise, a middle position between clashing beliefs of various Council Fathers (refresh your memory here – But what does that mean exactly? Kasper’s remarks seem to suggest that the Fathers gave consent to the wording, but their individual interpretation differed. Surely, that cannot be so, because then there simply isn’t a single true interpretation of the documents! (Think about what that means for a while!) And what the heck does something without a true intepretation express, because it frankly cannot be truth?! So this simply cannot be the case. Yet, if they all were one mind about the interpretation, why didn’t they reword it and express the meaning clearly? I am really baffled here, how is one supposed to consent to something that has a meaning that is damn impossible to pin down? I know the discussions of the documents by the Council Fathers during the Council are written down somewhere (though I think not yet fully translated into English), has anyone read them, do they clarify things? Even if they do, yet again I must ask, if they all shared the interpretation, why didn’t they express it without any ambiguity? Or if the correct interpretation is expressed clearly in the additional discussions why haven’t I seen anybody ever bother to quote it or direct me towards those documents?

    Help? Anyone?

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s